Anio

From experience, I know this is something very hard to reproduce, if not impossible. I generally avoid to put that kind of details. When you try to reproduce very small dammages, you end up with some odd colors here and there. The model doesn't not look more accurate or realistic. It just looks weirder. :-S I am sure I could too. I am not a big fan of that vehicle, though. I stick to the vehicles from the movies. No need to say that my next UCS is a famous vehicle. haha Dat's what I do.

Putting tiles on an sculpture shaped part would not be very tasteful IMO. Studs everywhere on that part brings consistency. Moreover, studs tend to smooth the "stair effect" (with tiles, stair effect is VERY visible). Well, it is the same approach as the head of R2D2 10225, but smoother. I like it. :) Yes, I explain that on TechLUG. The holes are the key feature of the "skirt". I have to make them accurate. And for that, the best thing to do is to use a round shape. 2x2 ideally. So I choose the barrel. But I can not make them visible on the upper side without destroying the line made with wings. And this line is important to put some flow in the "skirt". So, I put the barrel in the thickness of the "skirt". But with that SNOT technique, I can not close the underside with a new layer of plates. The SNOT for tubes prevents me to do so... Compromise, compromise, as always.

EDIT : Professional building instruction available here : You can email me at setechnic@gmail.com /EDIT Hello everyone, Here is my latest MOC : a UCS AAT. UCS AAT by Anio, sur Flickr UCS AAT by Anio, sur Flickr UCS AAT by Anio, sur Flickr My FlickR gallery for more photos : And My Brickshlef gallery for even more photos : http://www.brickshel...ry.cgi?f=540525 Few words about the model : - it uses a lot of tan bricks and I like that. Still, 2 parts (cones) are painted because not yet available in tan. I thank Nicks, a Belgian AFOL, for his help to paint those 2 parts. - the model has the features you can expect from a UCS model : all cannons rotating, with friction to keep an angle. The cannons on the sides use gears for that. - the model has a realistic interior with seats, controls, periscope, etc. The back door can be opened and the side panels can be easily removed to see more details. - the model is only made out of 1,000 bricks. I think it is a reasonnable amount of parts given the features included. - as usual, the model comes with a display card. - technically speaking, the model is not that complex. You have some SNOT here and there, and few other techniques. - but the design process was still tricky. First, I had to make the model "hollow" to put an interior. But this should not compromise the outside look. - overall, I had to adapt the real model for it to fit the Lego system. If you analyse closely, you will see that I totally redesigned some areas for the model to looks cool with Lego Bricks. It is hard to explain. But for you to get the idea, I would say that is was important to keep both a nice flow and the key lines of the model, in order to catch the spirit of the AAT. Some other pics : UCS AAT by Anio, sur Flickr A short video to see the model in flesh : If you have any question, please, ask. Stay tuned for the next UCS model. ;) Anio

I sell instructions for my UCS MOCs. And sometimes, I see people selling the actual model on ebay or bricklink. I do not mind as long as the guy only sells the actual model. The models belongs to him, after all. On the constrary, the work in the instructions belongs to me. That said, I appreciate when credit is mentionned in the auction.

No, sorry. :(

Yes, it is now certain that the model is built the way you did. That is logical. I had something like that in mind with my suggestion of the M motor and 2 speeds, but well, now I see how the model is structured, I really doubt motorization with 8293 is a possibility. I see no pin holes available to plug easily a M motor. As for the battery box... no comment. edit : +1 for racks

Good job. Definitely no room for a battery box here. However : - the 16t is still curious - in a video, we can clearly see a tan 20t at the back (maybe the person who built the model put the frame in the wrong way ? thus, the 20t is at the back and the wheels of the exposed model are not connected to the engine)

Finally we can see its differentiaI. I also think the bulldozer can be motorized. Two clues lead me to think that : - there are a lot of empty spaces below the model. Enough for a battery box and a M motor - there are some curious gear if not motorizable (a tan 20t at the back, what for ?) The motorization would be very simple. And the model would not be able to steer. But still, I think it would be damn fun for a child !! I think that the speed of the model could be controlled though, depending on how you plug the M motor. Either you use the 16t/16t gear reduction, or 12t/20t. edit : hum, I looked more carefully... not sure there is enough room for a battery box... Not sure at all... :/

In what universe adding a M motor on an Technic axle in 8265, 9396 etc adds complexity ? Even look at 42024. When motorized, you need 8t/24t to reach the gearbox. With non motorized design, it requires 16t/16t, 12t/12t, 20t/12t. Bingo ! It precisely make the model more simple ! (but technically speaking, it is pretty much the same and not more or less interesting IMO)

Certainely. But hell, I am appaled to read that kind of message (motor = complexity, what a joke). Many people are much more confortable with English than me to explain all the subtleties that can be involved in the design process of a non motorized model. Just look NK01. Or 8284. Many models are also motorized or can be motorized, but the challenge lays definitely not in the PFS (8109, 9396, 8265). On the contrary, some fully motorized models are very simple (8275). It is not a bad thing, but still, it is very simple. It is the same for MOCs.

I'm just gonna say LOL. Your post doesn't deserve more.

Tell me about it ! :(

That's sad, indeed. Most adult Technic fans don't give a shit to Lego models which are not motorized or motorisable (8293).

2 pneumatics cylinders located like on 8421 would rise the arm easily on the 42009. Regarding backhoes, I think that 8069 is much more fun to operate than 8455. All those knobs, like a vintage model, are awesome IMO. As for longer cylinder (pneumatic or LA), I do not think Lego really need them at the moment. They actually always found clever tricks to do without. I appreciate that.

I asked Lego through the Ambassador Program. :)

I don't know. I was just pointing out that no PF does not necessarily mean no pneumatics. :)

That's indeed very logical.

Thss1138, you have not 10 posts yet, so, I can not PM you. Would you please accept to email me at setechnic[at]gmail[dot]com ? I would like to ask you a favor. 8-)

+1

License = no b-model.

LA (whatever their are big or small) do not move simmetrically with a build like that. I mean, when one deploys, the other should theorically not retract with the same pattern/speed. But as they are connected (with gears), they are compelled to work together. And this is incorrect mechanically speaking. This is indeed a possibility.

But it stresses parts. LA's do not move symmetrically is such a configuration. Lego can't accept that in its models. [:thispostisobviousproof:]

I think it is a regular 5L thin liftarm attached with tan 3/4 pins.

This is the art of the compromise (efficiency of the build / stiffness / playability / simplicity / realism / quantity of part used / cost etc.).

Yeah, and when you have steered to the very left, and then you want to go straightforward, you must actually steer on to the right. I am sure a 12 yo kid will find this intuitive. :-S And if you want to steer to the very right, you have to wait 3 seconds for the model to drive in the right direction ? Again, I am sure a kid will love that. :-S You are talking about a Lego model. An official Lego model. The kid simply do not car that the steering is an exact replica to the real system. He just want to have fun.